Rather than use high performing private schools as a benchmark to improving state schools, we should close the high performing private schools and therefore drag down the overall standards of education in this country.

We should increase the burden on state provided education and the taxpayer by moving all privately educated children into state schools.

We should remove the opportunity for the country to profit from foreign families sending their children to well respected public schools.

This is what it comes down to, really, and particularly the first point. Equality of opportunity is a good concept, but it shouldn't be achieved by dragging down the top; that would be counter-intuitive and ultimately pointless.

You appear to be making an argument for grammar schools, not private. Independent schools by definition have to select partly on ability to pay the fees otherwise they won't turn any profit, and that somewhat defeats their purpose as, usually, a business.

If under your system an unusually high proportion of students needed bursaries one year, the school would be unable to provide any education, as it funds its services via independent means (hence the name), nearly always fees and donations.

Also, though it happens in some state schools, if vast majority of the the state system failed any bright child, as you suggest, all but a small minority of the students at Britain's top unis would have been privately educated, which quite patently isn't the case. I went to an 'average' state school, I did fine by most standards. Admittedly I didn't do as well as I could have, but that's because I couldn't really be bothered at GCSE, hardly the school's fault. Those who could be did very well, my sister picked up all A*s.

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
Education should not be entirely government controlled, because the government has proven that they don't have our best interests at heart. Gove is a wittering imbecile and I am already scared about the influence he will have over my brother's and my education (he's already stopped me from taking January modules for A level next year, heaping the pressure on me in the summer, and came this close to forcing my brother into an eBacc programme that wouldn't suit him one bit).

The moving A levels to a one exam system (much like we've had in Scotland for years) debate is for another topic, but don't the Government have the same influence in private schools as state schools?

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
You say that you don't want the wealth divide and therefore private schools should be banned. This is connoting that all private schools are only attended by the wealthy. OP, you are thinking of the type of 'private school' that only differs from state in that it is fee-paying instead of free. With that, I agree with you to an extent. However, most private schools are selective, filtering out the brightest kids and putting them in a competitive environment. THAT IS A GOOD THING.

No, it isn't. It's inferring that, on average, children at private schools hail from families with greater wealth, which is almost undeniable. As far as I am aware, very, very few children are accepted into private schools without having to fork out for any fees at all. On the contrary, I'd be willing to bet that most of the 'selective' private schools would gladly accept not so bright children if the parents pay a high enough fee. Why can't 'bright kids' be filtered out in state schools? That was done in my school.

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
I went to a state primary school and spent eight years of my life, in a classroom, bored to tears and learning exactly nothing. Some might say I was just lazy; my year 6 teacher genuinely told me, two months in, "there is nothing more we can teach her" - because they had been trained to teach to an average and I, like many other kids, wasn't the average. I am smart,

That's true to some extent. You're right, quite a high number of state educated children aren't 'pushed', especially in primary school.

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
but more than that, bad state schools treat you like you are just a number, a part of a quota, and that you are an inconvenience if you do not fit the average. I knew I wanted to go to X (my current school) since I was in year 3, because I was sick of not only being surrounded by people who didn't want to push me (and if people don't push me, I shut down and just sleep through lessons) and kids (and teachers!) who bullied me for being clever.

I don't know what kind of school you went to but it certainly wasn't like that at any of mine. Not once did I feel like 'just a number'.

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
We need private schools because whilst we should never culture a rich elite of students, an intellectual elite absolutely should be cultured - on the basis of just how bright you are, and not your class, background, or personality.

Do you really think that's the case? Private schools can't take in many intelligent children from families who can't afford the fees; they are a business after all. Private schools will prioritize children whose parents can afford the fees, hence leading to a culture of (relative to the average) rich children.

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
The school has an ethos of getting everyone to achieve the best they can, but that achievement is subjective to the person.

Is that not the case at a private school?

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
The wealth divide will not be solved by cutting out state schools. There is a HUGE wealth divide in state schools - the kids who can't afford designer gear, who are on free school meals, get victimised.

Again, quite a sweeping statement there. I can't recall a single child who was victimized because of their wealth.

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
Plus, and this is what you seem to be missing a little - NOT EVERYONE IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS IS RICH. NOT EVEN CLOSE. In my year, a minority of people are seriously rich. The average parent of a child in my year is likely in the same financial situation as the average parent of a child in the nearest state school.

I don't know where you're from or the demographics of your schools, but I'd be surprised if that were the case. It certainly isn't here. I wonder how the percentages of children living in low-cost accommodation, e.g. council housing, compare between private and state schools.

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
Plus, as long as intellect is the focus, bursaries are available. There are girls and boys in my year who are here on full bursaries because they're bright enough to be here but wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise.

I bet they are rather slim in number compared to the number of children not on bursaries.

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
There are many of my brother's classmates (even at his very good school) who take their education for granted and don't work at all.

I would presume there's rather a few children in your school who also take their education for granted.

(Original post by paradoxicalme)
In conclusion: we need private schools. We just need to have it so they are selective purely on the basis of academic merit, and they are open to everyone bright and hardworking enough to get in.

But that wouldn't be a private school, it would have to be state/charity run as it wouldn't make a profit.

To be honest, my parents say they regret not being able to send me to a private school. I think I'd probably want my children to go to a private school. That said, I don't think that's the way it should be.

Ultimately, most private schools are aimed at families with greater than average wealth, giving their children a statistically better chance of getting into higher education which, in turn, tends to provide them with the means to send their children to private schools.

remind me again why we should punish those that are successful in life? This is leaving aside the fact that near enough all private schools are charitable organisations and have generous scholarship and bursary schemes. Me feels youre just upset you couldnt go to one and feel jilted...

(Original post by roh)
You appear to be making an argument for grammar schools, not private. Independent schools by definition have to select partly on ability to pay the fees otherwise they won't turn any profit, and that somewhat defeats their purpose as, usually, a business.

Just feel i should point out but very very very few private schools are run as business's and the majority are charities which arent meant to be profit making.

(Original post by Pikachu123)
Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment.

You have the right to free education in the exact same way that you have the right to free healthcare. You also have the right to pay for private healthcare or private education. If people have the money and want to spend it to help their children do as well as possible in life then I say let them do it.

(Original post by cl_steele)
Just feel i should point out but very very very few private schools are run as business's and the majority are charities which arent meant to be profit making.

I know they all have charitable status, and as I said above some are truly charitable, but their resources go into trust accounts, which by definition cannot be traced into without good reason, so we don't know where that money actually goes in many cases. I think the charity thing is as much a historical legal anomaly which helps their tax to be honest.

(Original post by sevchenko)
Its the role of the state to provide basic educate kids

the state provides a free service (like the NHS) which the parents can choose to use. they my choose to use a private service(private school) or supplement the free service with a private service.(tutor) but its the parents choice/responsibility to educate.

(Original post by WeeGuy)
the state provides a free service (like the NHS) which the parents can choose to use. they my choose to use a private service(private school) or supplement the free service with a private service.(tutor) but its the parents choice/responsibility to educate.

No its not, if a child doesn't attend school the parents will be fined because as a child's legal guardian they have to ensure their child revived an basic education where ever that education might be. What about the kids who don't have parents

(Original post by sevchenko)
No its not, if a child doesn't attend school the parents will be fined because as a child's legal guardian they have to ensure their child revived an basic education where ever that education might be. What about the kids who don't have parents

the government ensures that the child is educated but its up to the parents to decide how the child is educated. Children can be home schooled. kids without parents, their guardian decides who ever that may be.

if you look at countries where the state has absolute control of 'education' Starlins russia Hitlers Germany they are taught the states beliefs.

(Original post by Lakesx)
Firstly, from a psychological approach it is obvious that you have not had access to private schooling, as you would not be having this rant. An person that has had private education, would be for it, as they would see the true benefit of it, It appears that you are simply putting forward an argument because your parents could not or would not allow you to go to private school, therefore you already have a bitter state of mind for being at a disadvantage.

Secondly, I have been privileged to go to a private school with a scholarship, and also to a state school before hand... The disparity in education techniques is ridiculously different for example at private school, they teach you to aim high, that an A* is not the best but 100% is(if you see what I mean) they want you to be confident, independent, and succeed in life. Where as at state schools even though you many be a bright student, they want you to pass not strive, just simply scrape bare basics.... If this mind set was applied to all schools, the large majority would remain average or below par.

Thirdly, it you applied the argument that people born with money should not be at an advantage... that is a communist way of thinking, that everyone should be equal regardless of the fact that even though two families' first generation have the same amount of wealth but one family succeed though pure hard-work and dedication that their child should not have the right to get a better education. Surely we should be making all schooling at a private level standard, rather then bring them down to par standard? Surely money that is spent of second homes for MP and benefits for unemployed migrant with 5 children should be spent on bring the education standard up?

Fourthly, have you been to a private school, do you actually know what it is like to be taught by these "elite" teacher? If you do not, I suggest you get experience of it first hand to see the true value of private education before you argue against it...

Nobody would argue private education isn't a great thing for an individual to have, anybody who is lucky to have it is incredibly privileged, and is much more likely to do well because of it. So in that way, yes, private education and the elite teaching that comes with it truly is amazing.

But heres the rub, whether you or I end up in a private school with elite teachers and better chances isn't down to us (as children I mean). It is entirely down to our parents' circumstance - that's simply not fair IMO. I couldn't bare if I had private education, to look someone else in the eye and say 'I deserved that more than you did'. Simply couldn't do it. In a progressive and equal society, we are all born equal. To take that famous phrase 'it's equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome' that counts. Sorry, if you start a race an extra 50m in front, that's not a fair race. In the UK today, people born to poor/average income families are much more likely to have kids that don't do as well as their richer counterparts. It isn't communism to admit the link between socio-economic circumstance and educational achievement, just reality.

Surely we should be making all schooling at a private level standard, rather then bring them down to par standard?

Sure, I agree. But private schools don't just do well because of better teachers and better equipment. Sociologists generally agree that a large part of their success story is based on a high concentration of kids who's parents genuinely give a larger **** about their child's education than non-private school parents. Private school parents are statistically more likely to help with homework, more likely to discipline when homework is not done and more likely to be educated enough to contribute in a significant way. Mixing kids from all class backgrounds in the same environment, and assimilating 'elite' teachers into the public sector will only make the public sector system better.

Your future should not be predetermined by how much wonga your parents happen to spend on your schooling. Equality sir, is the issue.

(Original post by espial)
Nobody would argue private education isn't a great thing for an individual to have, anybody who is lucky to have it is incredibly privileged, and is much more likely to do well because of it. So in that way, yes, private education and the elite teaching that comes with it truly is amazing.

But heres the rub, whether you or I end up in a private school with elite teachers and better chances isn't down to us (as children I mean). It is entirely down to our parents' circumstance - that's simply not fair IMO. I couldn't bare if I had private education, to look someone else in the eye and say 'I deserved that more than you did'. Simply couldn't do it. In a progressive and equal society, we are all born equal. To take that famous phrase 'it's equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome' that counts. Sorry, if you start a race an extra 50m in front, that's not a fair race. In the UK today, people born to poor/average income families are much more likely to have kids that don't do as well as their richer counterparts. It isn't communism to admit the link between socio-economic circumstance and educational achievement, just reality.

Sure, I agree. But private schools don't just do well because of better teachers and better equipment. Sociologists generally agree that a large part of their success story is based on a high concentration of kids who's parents genuinely give a larger **** about their child's education than non-private school parents. Private school parents are statistically more likely to help with homework, more likely to discipline when homework is not done and more likely to be educated enough to contribute in a significant way. Mixing kids from all class backgrounds in the same environment, and assimilating 'elite' teachers into the public sector will only make the public sector system better.

Your future should not be predetermined by how much wonga your parents happen to spend on your schooling. Equality sir, is the issue.

(Original post by -strawberry-)
I go to a private school. I am not rich. I only pay 50% fees. It really bugs me when people say you have to be rich to go to a private school, there are plenty of cheaper ones around than the likes of Eton etc.

While I disagree with the OP, you are clearly haven't got much understanding of wealth - a large number of people are on free school meals, these people could not afford to pay 'only' 50% fees anywhere and it is these people who are affected and unable to change their situation.

(Original post by hslt)
While I disagree with the OP, you are clearly haven't got much understanding of wealth - a large number of people are on free school meals, these people could not afford to pay 'only' 50% fees anywhere and it is these people who are affected and unable to change their situation.

Well done, you're not rich, but you're definitely not poor.

Errr I don't know where you got the idea that I "have no idea of wealth" .. at what point did I say I was poor? At what point did I say poor people can easily go to a private school? All I said was you don't have to be rich to go to a private school, and you don't.